Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-10-12
Special telegram 10 The Dlspatch. ]

Bond, filed through his counsel, Mr..
William W. Gordon, the following APP
plication for leave TO petition for writ
Of hGbc0s corpus:
" To the HonOraJIc .Tsdqcs Of The .Su-
prcmc court of The Unitcd .Sfatcs:
"Your petitioner, Rufus A. Ayers,
respectfully shows that he is a citizen
of the United States OF America, resi-
dent OF the State of Virginia, and
that be is Attorney-Gencral of
said State; that as such officer
it became his duty to perform
certain acts which are set forth in the
accompanying record, which your petit
toner prays may be taken rs part of
this his petition and in his perform
ance of his official duty your petitioner
did, on the 30th day OF June, 1887, in
stitute suit against the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad Company mentioned in
said record. Your petitioner asserts
that said record shows that the suit, iD
which certain orders of the honorable
Judge Of the court before whom 1t Is
pending was entered, and OF which said
acts your petitioner herein complains
is one over which the said honorable
Judge had no jurisdiction. Your peti-
toner further asserts that the said
honorable Judge acting in sad case
over which your petitioner respectfully
insists be had no jurisdiction, entered
on the Sth day Of October, 1887. the
following order:
IN re. Rufus A. Ayers. This mat
ter came on this day to he heard upon
q rule heretofore issued against Rufus
A. Ayers, Attorney-General OF the State
Of Virginia, to show cause why he
should not be attached for contempt in
disobeying n restraining order hereto
fore granted in the suit Of Cooper It
dis. az. Marye It ats. on the 9th day OF
June. 1887, and his answer thereto
On consideration whereof the Court Is
Of the opinion and doth order and al
Judge that the said Rufus A. Ayers is
guilty Of contempt in his disobedience
Of said order, and that he do forthwith
dismiss the suit Of the Commonwealth
rs. The Baltimore mud Ohio Railway
instituted by him in the Circuit Court
Of the city Of Richmond, and that for
said contempt he be fined the sum Of
$500 and stand committed in custody
Of the marshal Of this court until the
same be paid and he purge himself OF
his contempt by dismlssing said suit
last herein mentioned.
"HUGH L. BOND,
"'Circuit Judge.
"Your petitioner states that believing
that enid Judge was without jurisdic
ton in the cause, and therefore without
authority TO enter said last-named or
der. declined TO pay the fine SO imposed
or to comply with the other require
mcuts therein made, and thereupon
yCur petitioner was ordered 10y said
Judge into the actual custody Of
Thomas W. Scott, United States Mar
shal for the Eastern district OF Nirgi-
mia, until your petitioner should fully
comply with the requirements Of sail
order. Your petitioner further asserts
that he is now detained under said or
der in the custody of said Marshal, and
is held and confined 10y him in the city
of Richmond, Va.
"Your petitioner insists that rs said
Judge was without jurisdiction over
said cause in which he entered said or
der last named. under which your pc
tiiioncr is detained and imprisoned,
Your petitioner IS BOW so illegally de
taiucd and imprisoned withoutauthori-
" or due process Of law. Wherefore
10 he relieved of said unlawful dcten
ton and imprisonment your petitioner
urays that writ Of hajcas c0,3)uF, 10
ie directed to said Thomas ". Scott,
United States Marshal aforesaid, may
issue in this behalf, so that your peti-
toner may be forthwith brought before
this court to do, submit to, and receive
what tie Law may require.
"RUrC3 4. AYERS. y
Similar applications were made ii
behalf Of John Scott, Commonwealth 5
attorney for the county Of Fauquier.
Va. and j. 3. McCabe. Common
wtaith's attorney for the county of Lou
dCun, IN the same State, both Of whom
are in prison hy virtue OF Judge Bonds
oldtr The court took the papers for
consideration and announced that 1t
would render decision tomorrow
upon these applications for leave to file
petitions.
he courtroom was comfortably full,
very nearly every one OF the com
Tarativcly few seats to which the public
a1cndmitted having been taken. Among
tie auditors were a number O! Nirgl-
nians and other southerners. Nothing
is known as to the forthcoming decision,
but there is an expectation that the
Court will oyetrule Judge Bond, not
simply discharglng the prisoners from
custody but cOntrOverilng his entire
uound Of action.
A Ktatcmenf from nr. Royal.
Io tie Fdior of tie Dispatch:
So much comment has been made
uon the fact that when the United
yates Circuit Court took Inc ont Of
'ail was allowed to go at large IN tn
nominal custody Of the marshal, while
M,ssrs. Ayers and Scott are kept IN a.
ual confinement, that | ask leave to
suggest word Of explanation.
| was convicted in the Hastings
Court Of the city Of Richmond and
cent to jail under the conviction. !
applied 10 the United States Court 10
discharge me on the ground that my
imprisonment was forbidden by the
Constitution OF the United States.
After argument the Judge thought
the point well taken, but he wanted
time to write his opinion. He com
mitttd NE to the nominal custody OF
the marshal during that time.
in MIR. Ayerss case the Judge THINKS
that he ought to be punished and be
orders him into actual custody as q
measure OF punishment. You perceive,
therefore, that in my case the Court was
relieving me from an unjust punish
ment. while in the case of Messrs.
Ayers and Scott it Is indicting a pun
i.hment that it thinks they should en-